More than 100 new units of affordable housing could be coming to the city of San Luis Obispo as part of a Housing Authority project that proposes to replace Central Coast Brewing on Monterey Street.
But the resulting loss of 54 trees on the property sparked a tense discussion at the city’s Tree Committee meeting on Oct. 10. More than 20 locals wrote or called in ahead of the meeting to protest their removal.
“I live in the neighborhood. I have a beautiful view of these huge redwoods,” resident Teresa Trejo told the committee on Oct. 10. “What about building around the trees? Certainly, there has to be some other way.”
The Housing Authority of SLO is seeking approval for its 106-unit project at 1422 Monterey St., which involves demolishing the site’s existing building and replacing it with two five-story buildings and two two-story duplexes, with an underground parking structure in back.
“This is going to be 100 units of affordable housing—deed-restricted housing, some for seniors and some for families,” said Scott Smith, executive director of the Housing Authority.
But between the demolition activities and the density of the new development, 54 trees are on the chopping block. The species include coast live oaks, coast redwoods, elms, and others.
The developer proposes to replace the trees by 1:1 ratio, but resident David Brody said that the replantings won’t compensate for the loss of the mature trees and their environmental benefits.
“The idea that mature trees can be replaced with saplings is ludicrous. And I’ll scream that from the rooftops,” Brody said. “Our attitude about trees must be revised. They are no longer expendable.”
Representatives from the project design contractor, RRM Design Group, explained that the site’s uneven topography and the need to put the parking garage behind the housing made any major revisions to the design very challenging if not impossible.
RRM arborist Jake Minnick added that many of the trees slated for removal are in poor health. While several public commenters took issue with the loss of the property’s redwood trees, Minnick said those also aren’t healthy.
“It’s really not a great climate for redwood trees,” he said. “There’s a few pockets in Big Sur, but there’s really not a place down here south.”
Tree committee members’ comments ranged from thanking the Housing Authority and RRM for their work, to lamenting the committee’s lack of authority and purview on projects
“We do sometimes have projects come before us where it’s just, grade everything and just replace it all, absolutely no concern given to preservation of trees. And that’s not what we saw in this case, so that’s very much appreciated,” committee Chair Daniel Canella said.
According to committee member Alan Bate, SLO city revised its tree removal policies in 2019 to take some discretion away from the tree committee in reviewing projects—a move that Bate said he was “not a big fan of.”
“The change in the rules that happened a couple of years ago really does limit us,” Bate said. “The way I read it is we put in our recommendations and then developers can just say, ‘Thanks for the recommendations.’ This is all kind of lip service, is basically how I feel.”
The committee voted 3-1, with Bate dissenting, to recommend approval of the project, with a request that the designers look at saving two specific trees that were proposed to be removed and that a portion of the replacement trees are taller and in larger boxes.
The project will next go to the Architectural Review Commission on Oct. 17.
After the Tree Committee voted, its members discussed Bate’s concerns about the city process and floated the idea of setting up a meeting with city administrators to talk about possible future changes.
In response to the concerns expressed, SLO Public Works Director Matt Horn told New Times that the revised tree policies in 2019 were meant to provide “objective standards” for removing trees that were more “consistent, transparent, and efficient.”
This article appears in Oct 13-23, 2022.
Just ask the developer to increase the ratio of new tree plantings from 1:1 to a higher #, like 3:1. In 10 years the 3:1 ratio will start making a difference. In 20 years, you’ll be good to go!
I always love how developers justify cutting down trees “…well…er…umm…they’re sick! Yeah, sick trees must come down!”
Not the climate for them? They’ve been there for well over 100 years, what climate is doing them so badly?
It’s not like Monterey is well suited to handle more traffic at the train bridge as it is. This plan wants to add more? The parking will be in the back? So, Palm St in a closely huddled neighborhood is better? And when Monterey gets the bicycle lane treatment like Higuera and Marsh, which squeezes the ever increasing traffic load into smaller lanes, who will take the blame for that future fiasco?
How about…..stop with the “low cost housing” BS, and quit trying your damnedest to make SLO into North LA?
A developer NEVER met a tree that didn’t “need to be cut down”. Developers and politicians (bought by developers) are the scourge of the earth.
My husband and I have lived in our home on Palm St. for 48years which is right behind C.C. Brewery , the parking
on Palm St . is already congested and we have to jockey cars off and on all day long to park in front of our home.
The traffic is a huge problem getting out on California St. and as for our beautiful trees the owls, black birds , etc. will no longer have there homes and to cut these trees down is absolutely ridiculous so the City/ Haslo can make more money
building more homes than the town has room for . It’s going to ruin our quality of life with noise, traffic, trash , water
that we don’t have as it is now.
SHAME ON YOU